Punjab-Haryana High Court
Onkar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46953-2024
Reserved on: 15.10.2024
Pronounced on: 21.10. 2024
Onkar Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Rubal Pawar, A.A.G. Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons
111 26.06.2019 Majitha, Amritsar 302, 148, 149 IPC
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above has come up
before this Court under Sec on 482 of Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allega ons are being taken from the reply dated 26.09.2024 filed
by the State, which reads as follows:
"2. That the brief and the relevant facts of the case are that the
aforesaid FIR No.111 dated 26.06.2019 was registered on the basis of
the statement of Rahul son of Rajpal Singh, who had alleged therein
that he and his brother namely Pawan were running a car washing
service sta'on near the house of Balkar Singh son of Baldev Singh at
Kathunangal Road and Balkar Singh was having suspicion that his
younger brother Pawan was having illicit rela'ons with his (Balkar
Singh) daughter named Anu. He further alleged that in the
intervening night of 22/23.06.2019 around 1.00 A.M, Harman Kaur
wife of Balkar Singh came to their house and raised a suspicion on his
brother Pawan for en'cing their daughter Anu but his parents told
Harman Kaur that both their sons had gone to the house of their
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
daughter Aar' for giving invita'on of marriage of their younger
daughter and due to the night, they had stayed there. He further
alleged that therea2er at about 2/2.30 A.Μ. Harman Kaur along with
his mother went to the house of Aar' to search her daughter with
their servant Laddi and both he and his brother Pawan were found
sleeping in the room but Harman Kaur kept on alleging that her
daughter Anu was also there. Therea2er, his sisters and aunt Amarjit
Kaur also started searching for Anu and they found Anu coming from
Gurdwara Bhai Saalo side and the family members of Anu took her to
their house and his sister informed him about the recovery of Anu
and asked them to return back to their home and he, his brother
Pawan and his sister came back to their house and therea2er they
went to the house of Balkar Singh to ask about the reason of missing
of his daughter Anu but they were turned out from their house and
later on they came to know that Anu had played a drama to
persuade her family to get married with Pawan. He further alleged
that on 26.06.2019 at about 12.30/12.45 PM, he and his father were
standing in front of their gate and they saw one Alto Car came in a
very high speed from the Kathunangal side and hit his brother Pawan
and his brother fell down on the side of road and Kassu armed with
datar, Harpal Singh armed with kirpan, Onkar Singh (pe''oner)
armed with datar, Laddi (their servant) armed with datar and one
uniden'fied person armed with iron rod alighted from their car and
in the mean'me Balkar Singh also came there on a motorcycle and
raised a lalkara to kill Pawan as he wanted to marry his daughter, on
which the co-accused Kassu and Harpal Singh caused an injury on the
neck of his brother Pawan with the blows of their datar and kirpan
respec'vely and the pe''oner Onkar Singh and Laddi caused injuries
on the wrist of Pawan with their respec've weapons and one
uniden'fied person also hit on the arm and head of Pawan with the
iron rod. He further alleged that when he and his father raised hue
and cry, the accused persons fled away from the spot with their
respec've weapons on their vehicles and he and his brother-in law
Harpal Singh took Pawan to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar for
his treatment, where he was declared him dead and he also came to
know that the aforesaid accused persons had also murdered Anu
with kirch and threw her body outside his service center. The main
cause of the incident was Anu wanted to marry his brother Pawan
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
and due to which the aforesaid persons had murdered his brother
Pawan and Anu. The detailed facts men'oned in the aforesaid
statement is a>ached herewith as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be
read as the part of this photograph please, as same is not repeated
for the sake of brevity."
4. Counsel for the pe oner also refers to paras No. 4 and 5 of the bail pe on,
which reads as under:
"4. That there was no occasion on the part of the pe''oner to avoid
the proceedings as none of the Witness has supported the version of
the prosecu'on and moreover Vide Judgment dated 31.01.2024, the
co-accused has been acqui>ed. The Copy of the Judgment is also
annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.
5. That as ma>er of fact the pe''oner has been incorporated as an
accused, only on the aspect that he is also an rela've of the other
accused and the role a>ributed is he gave a blow on the hand and
wrist along with other co-accused. The injury as alleged a>ributed to
the pe''oner is on the hand and wrist."
5. The pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and
contends that further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the
pe oner and their family.
6. State counsel opposes the bail on the grounds that the pe oner was an
absconder and it's a serious offence involving murder and the pe oner is not en tled
to even regular bail what to speak about an cipatory bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por ons of the reply, which read
as follows:
"Role of the pe''oner
6. That as per the prosecu'on version, the pe''oner being armed with
a datar was an ac've member of unlawful assembly consis'ng of other
nominated co-accused Balkar Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagjit Singh alias
Laadi, Sunny and Vikas alias Kaasu had ac'vely par'cipated in the
occurrence on 26.06.2019 to commit murder of deceased Pawan by
causing injury on the wrist of Pawan with a blow of a datar. The
pe''oner has also caused injury upon Anu with a blow of Panja
resul'ng into the death of Anu. During the inves'ga'on, the murders of
the deceased Pawan and Anu were found to be on account of honor
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
killing due to their alleged love affair.
Evidence against the pe''oner
7. The evidence against the pe''oner is in the form of oral statement of
the complainant Rahul and Ar' recorded under sec'on 161 Cr.P.C by the
inves'ga'ng officer, which is corroborated with the post-mortem
reports of deceased Pawan and Anu."
8. An analysis of arguments advanced would lead to the following outcome. In the
inves ga on, the evidence came against the pe oner through inves ga on of Rahul
and Ar whose statements were recorded under Sec on 161 CrPC. However, vide
judgment dated 31.01.2024, four co-accused were acqui@ed. I have gone through the
said judgment, which is annexed with the pe on as Anexure P-2. It has been observed
in para 23 of the judgment that PW-Rahul did not support the prosecu on version and
was declared as a hos le witness. Similarly, PW 2-Ar , PWs No. 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 18 also
did not support the prosecu on's case. Thus, the trial Court acqui@ed the accused for
the reasons that there was no incrimina ng evidence proved to implicate them. The
evidence collected against the pe oner was also similar. This Court is not considering
the case for the framing of charges and it might be a case for framing of charges and to
proceed against the trial. However, as far as the pe on for bail is concerned, it is not a
case to deny the same.
9. The pre-trial incarcera on should not be a replica of post-convic on sentencing.
The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu on or to frame charges,
but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing the same for
the bail stage.
10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allega ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no jus fiability for custodial interroga on or the pre-trial incarcera on at this
stage.
11. Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances
peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oner makes a case
for bail. This order shall come into force from the me it is uploaded on this Court's
official webpage.
12. Given above, provided the pe oner is not required in any other case, the
pe oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap oned above subject to furnishing
bonds to the sa sfac on of the Arres ng Officer, and if the ma@er is before a Court,
then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court
must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the
accused.
13. While furnishing a personal bond, the pe oner shall men on the following
personal iden fica on details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
a@es ng officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. This order is subject to the pe oner's complying with the following terms. The
pe oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi ons and appear before the concerned
Court(s) on all dates. The pe oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence,
browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses,
Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
15. The pe''oner is directed to join the inves'ga'on within seven days of uploading
this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and
when called by the Inves'gator. The pe oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec on
27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe oner shall join
the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer
and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event
of failure to do so, the prosecu on will be open to seeking cancella on of the bail.
During the inves ga on, the pe oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent
language, inhuman treatment, etc.
16. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the pe oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the family
of the deceased un l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial
are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi on to rule out any a@empt by the
accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic m. Reference be
made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves ga on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and
Aparna Bha@ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
17. Given the background of allega ons against the pe oner, it becomes
paramount to protect the vic m's family members, as well as the members of society,
and incapacita ng the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137357
CRM-M-46953-2024
the closure report or discharge, or acqui@al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to
restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric on is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc on].
Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the
pe oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni on, if any, along with the
arms license to the concerned authority within fiLeen days from release from prison and
inform the Inves gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the pe oner shall be en tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui@al in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric ng firearms would
ins ll confidence in the vic m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repea ng the offense.
18. The condi ons men oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to
reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v.
State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022,
Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds
that "The bail condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the
purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of
imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of
the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result
in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."
19. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
20. A cer fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Pe oner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and a@est it to be a true copy. If the a@es ng officer
wants to verify its authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may
download and use the downloaded copy for a@es ng bonds.
21. Pe11on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.10.2024
Jyo'-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6 of 6
